THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 31 of 2015

Date of Institution : 8.1.2015

Date of Decision : 3.09.2015

Pardeep Gupta Son of Vijay Kumar R/o 1311, Gali Jalfan Devi, Kt.Baghaian, Ram Bagh, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at SCO No. 93, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Near Passport Office,Amritsar through its Divisional Manager

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Baljinder Singh Sachdeva Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh.S.K.Davessar,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Pardeep Gupta under the provisions of the

Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got his motorcycle Hero Honda bearing registration No. PB-02-BH-3205 insured with the opposite party for the period from 22.3.2013 to 21.3.2014 vide policy No. 390102/31/12/6203348013 with IDV 24,995/-. The said vehicle was stolen from Hall Bazar, Amritsar on 17.5.2013. The matter was reported to the police of P.S.Kotwali vide representation dated 17.5.2013 and FIR No. 53/2013 u/s 379 IPC was lodged by P.S. Kotwali. Complainant also intimated the opposite party and lodged his claim alongwith requisite documents as required by the opposite party. The opposite party further demanded certain documents i.e. untraced report issued by the police authorities, which the complainant submitted with the opposite party. But till date the opposite party did not release the claim amount to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to make payment of the claim amount i.e. Rs. 24995/- alongwith interest . Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that on receipt of the information from the complainant regarding the loss of his insured motorcycle, complainant was asked to supply untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C duly accepted by the court and other requisite documents and in this regard so many letters i.e. letters dated 23.7.2013, 19.10.2013 and 3.12.2013 were written by the investigator and after that so many letters were written by the opposite party i.e. letter dated 29.11.2013, 24.1.2014, 7.3.2014, 27.3.2014, 23.4.2014, 26.5.2014, 20.6.2014 and 6.8.2014, but the complainant did not furnish the requisite documents/information. As such the claim of the complainant is not payable on account of non furnishing of requisite documents. It was further submitted that complainant is also legally bound to furnish letter of subrogation, power of attorney and transfer of RC of the vehicle in question in favour of the opposite party before payment of the claim by the opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3 Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16.

4 Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.H.S.Chawla, Sr.Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to OP17.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the ld.counsel for the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant got his motorcycle Hero Honda bearing registration No. PB-02-BH-3205 insured with the opposite party for the period from 22.3.2013 to 21.3.2014 vide policy No. 390102/31/12/6203348013 with IDV 24,995/-. The said vehicle was stolen from Hall Bazar, Amritsar on 17.5.2013. The matter was reported to the police of P.S.Kotwali vide representation dated 17.5.2013 Ex.C-4. The police processed the matter vide noting Ex.C-5 and tagged the same with FIR 53 of 2013 u/s 379 IPC, P.S.Kotwali,Amritsar, copy of said FIR is Ex.C-6. Opposite party was also informed vide letter dated 21.5.2013 Ex.C-11. The police could not recover the said motorcycle, as such they issued untraced certificate Ex.C-7 and C-8. The report sent to NCRB, New Delhi is Ex.C-9 with list of vehicles stolen but could not be recovered. The police also submitted untraced report with the Ilaqa Magistrate u.s 173 Cr.P.C., copy of which is Ex.C-10. Claim was lodged with the opposite party. Opposite party wrote letter dated 22.5.2013 Ex.C-12 and letter dated 29.11.2013 Ex.C-13, letter dated 20.6.2014 Ex.C-14 and letter dated 8.6.2014 Ex.C-15 asking the complainant to furnish independent individual FIR and other documents i.e. untraced report duly accepted by the court and the lastest NCRB report and asked the complainant that if these documents were not furnished within 15 days , opposite party shall presume that complainant is not interested in this claim and the same shall be treated as closed. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that on receipt of the information from the complainant regarding the loss of his insured motorcycle, complainant was asked to supply untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C duly accepted by the court and other requisite documents and in this regard so many letters were written to the complainant. But the complainant did not furnish the requisite documents/information. As such the claim of the complainant is not payable on account of non furnishing of requisite documents. The complainant is also legally bound to furnish letter of subrogation, power of attorney and transfer of RC of the vehicle in question in favour of the opposite party before payment of

the claim by the opposite party. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-02-BH-3205 insured with the opposite party for the period from 22.3.2013 to 21.3.2014 as per cover note Ex.C-2 with IDV of the vehicle as Rs. 24,995/-. The said vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons on 17.5.2013 at Hall Bazar,Amritsar. The complainant reported the matter to the police immediately i.e. on the same day vide representation Ex.C-4 dated 17.5.2013. The proceedings of the police is Ex.C-5 and they tagged the same with FIR No. 53 of 2013 of P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.C-6. The opposite party was also informed by the complainant vide letter dated 21.5.2013 Ex.C-11. The police could not trace out the said vehicle and they issued untraced report Ex.C-7 and untraced certificate Ex.C-8, report sent to NCRB, New Delhi Ex.C-9 and the police also submitted untraced report to the Ilaqa Magistrate Ex.C-10. Claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party but the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant only on the ground that complainant should furnish individual independent FIR regarding the theft of this vehicle , untraceable report duly accepted by the court and the latest NCRB report. The complainant has furnished all the relevant documents which he could furnish to the opposite party i.e. copy of report lodged to the police regarding theft of the vehicle Ex.C-4 dated 17.5.2013. The police tagged the case of the complainant with FIR No. 53 of 2013 ,P.S. Kotwali, copy of which is Ex.C-6, untraced certificates Ex.C-7 and C-8, report of NCRB Ex.C-9 and the untraced report submitted by the police to the Ilaqa Magistrate . The complainant is not bound to furnish independent FIR because it is the duty of the police to see whether independent FIR is to be recorded in this case or this case is to be tagged with another similar FIR. Moreover, the complainant is bound to inform the police only regarding the theft of his vehicle. He is not bound to furnish untraced report duly accepted by the court u/s 173 Cr.P.C., whereas the complainant has already furnished the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C submitted by the police with the Ilaqa Magistrate regarding the aforesaid FIR. Opposite party is certainly in deficiency of service in not settling the claim case of the complainant for the last more than two years.

9. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 24995/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order ; failing which complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant, subject to furnishing of letter of subrogation, power of attorney, transfer of RC of the vehicle in question  in favour of the Opposite Party by the complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay the costs of litigation amounting to Rs.2000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

3.09.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member